右室起搏诱发性心肌病患者升级至左束支区起搏与双心室起搏的疗效比较。

IF 5.6 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Chen He, Shun Xu, Chuangshi Wang, Xiaofei Li, Haojie Zhu, Jiaxin Zeng, Enrui Zhang, Jiangang Zou, Xiaohan Fan
{"title":"右室起搏诱发性心肌病患者升级至左束支区起搏与双心室起搏的疗效比较。","authors":"Chen He, Shun Xu, Chuangshi Wang, Xiaofei Li, Haojie Zhu, Jiaxin Zeng, Enrui Zhang, Jiangang Zou, Xiaohan Fan","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) occurs in some patients requiring high burden of right ventricular pacing (RVP).Whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) might be superior to biventricular pacing delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVP-CRT) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LBBAP compared with BiVP in patients with PICM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, two-center observational study enrolled consecutive patients with PICM who underwent upgrading to either LBBAP or BiVP. LBBAP was further classified into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Other echocardiographic parameters, NT-proBNP levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and clinical events (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, malignant ventricular arrhythmias) were evaluated during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Totally 78 patients were included into the final analysis (33% patients with LVEF<35%), including 40 patients with LBBAP (30 with LBBP and 10 with LVSP) and 38 patients with BiVP. At the 6-month follow-up, LVEF improvement was significantly greater in patients with LBBAP than those with BiVP (9.59±7.48% vs 4.91±7.73%; P=0.008), and higher in LBBP than LVSP (10.62±7.28% vs 6.47±7.57). During a mean follow-up duration of 20.5 ± 12.5 months, clinical outcomes did not differ between BiVP and LBBAP groups [26.3% vs 17.5%; adjusted HR=1.57(0.55-4.48), P=0.395] after adjustment for confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PICM upgrading to LBBAP or BiVP demonstrated similar clinical outcomes, but upgrading to LBBAP was associated with greater improvement in LVEF.</p>","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy.\",\"authors\":\"Chen He, Shun Xu, Chuangshi Wang, Xiaofei Li, Haojie Zhu, Jiaxin Zeng, Enrui Zhang, Jiangang Zou, Xiaohan Fan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) occurs in some patients requiring high burden of right ventricular pacing (RVP).Whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) might be superior to biventricular pacing delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVP-CRT) remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LBBAP compared with BiVP in patients with PICM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, two-center observational study enrolled consecutive patients with PICM who underwent upgrading to either LBBAP or BiVP. LBBAP was further classified into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Other echocardiographic parameters, NT-proBNP levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and clinical events (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, malignant ventricular arrhythmias) were evaluated during follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Totally 78 patients were included into the final analysis (33% patients with LVEF<35%), including 40 patients with LBBAP (30 with LBBP and 10 with LVSP) and 38 patients with BiVP. At the 6-month follow-up, LVEF improvement was significantly greater in patients with LBBAP than those with BiVP (9.59±7.48% vs 4.91±7.73%; P=0.008), and higher in LBBP than LVSP (10.62±7.28% vs 6.47±7.57). During a mean follow-up duration of 20.5 ± 12.5 months, clinical outcomes did not differ between BiVP and LBBAP groups [26.3% vs 17.5%; adjusted HR=1.57(0.55-4.48), P=0.395] after adjustment for confounders.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PICM upgrading to LBBAP or BiVP demonstrated similar clinical outcomes, but upgrading to LBBAP was associated with greater improvement in LVEF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Heart rhythm\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Heart rhythm\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.042\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart rhythm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.05.042","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:起搏性心肌病(PICM)发生在一些需要高负荷右心室起搏(RVP)的患者中。是否左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)可能优于双室起搏提供心脏再同步化治疗(BiVP-CRT)尚不清楚。目的:本研究旨在评价LBBAP与BiVP在PICM患者中的疗效。方法:这项前瞻性、双中心观察性研究招募了连续接受LBBAP或BiVP升级治疗的PICM患者。LBBAP进一步分为左束支起搏(LBBP)和左室间隔起搏(LVSP)。主要终点是左室射血分数(LVEF)从基线到6个月随访的变化。随访期间评估其他超声心动图参数、NT-proBNP水平、纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级和临床事件(全因死亡率、心力衰竭住院、恶性室性心律失常)。结果:共有78例患者(33%为LVEF)被纳入最终分析。结论:PICM升级为LBBAP或BiVP的临床结果相似,但升级为LBBAP与LVEF改善更大相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effectiveness of upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy.

Background: Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) occurs in some patients requiring high burden of right ventricular pacing (RVP).Whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) might be superior to biventricular pacing delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVP-CRT) remains unclear.

Objective: The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LBBAP compared with BiVP in patients with PICM.

Methods: This prospective, two-center observational study enrolled consecutive patients with PICM who underwent upgrading to either LBBAP or BiVP. LBBAP was further classified into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Other echocardiographic parameters, NT-proBNP levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and clinical events (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, malignant ventricular arrhythmias) were evaluated during follow-up.

Results: Totally 78 patients were included into the final analysis (33% patients with LVEF<35%), including 40 patients with LBBAP (30 with LBBP and 10 with LVSP) and 38 patients with BiVP. At the 6-month follow-up, LVEF improvement was significantly greater in patients with LBBAP than those with BiVP (9.59±7.48% vs 4.91±7.73%; P=0.008), and higher in LBBP than LVSP (10.62±7.28% vs 6.47±7.57). During a mean follow-up duration of 20.5 ± 12.5 months, clinical outcomes did not differ between BiVP and LBBAP groups [26.3% vs 17.5%; adjusted HR=1.57(0.55-4.48), P=0.395] after adjustment for confounders.

Conclusion: PICM upgrading to LBBAP or BiVP demonstrated similar clinical outcomes, but upgrading to LBBAP was associated with greater improvement in LVEF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Heart rhythm
Heart rhythm 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
5.50%
发文量
1465
审稿时长
24 days
期刊介绍: HeartRhythm, the official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society and the Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, is a unique journal for fundamental discovery and clinical applicability. HeartRhythm integrates the entire cardiac electrophysiology (EP) community from basic and clinical academic researchers, private practitioners, engineers, allied professionals, industry, and trainees, all of whom are vital and interdependent members of our EP community. The Heart Rhythm Society is the international leader in science, education, and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on heart rhythm disorders. Its mission is to improve the care of patients by promoting research, education, and optimal health care policies and standards.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信